Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.
The fundamental issue is judicial tyranny. Without that this marrige amendment would not even be an issue.
You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.
First, please read 1963 communist goals:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml
"Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times "
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml
Origins of Political Correctness
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
III.Antonio Gramschi, 1891-1937
A.The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
1.Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
2.Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
3.Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
4.Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)
B.Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
1.The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
2.When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism
C.Gradual revolution: infiltrate, Co-opt, Subvert
1.Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
2.Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
3.Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
4.Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
5.Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
6.Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons
D.Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as
"global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"
E.Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a
Communist revolution can succeed
1.Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as
Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
a.Terror will only drive Religion underground
b.Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
c.So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
2.Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
a.Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
b.Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
(1)Cause financial and sexual scandals
(2)See that this is given a high profile in the news
(3)Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
3.Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the
idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been
traditionally brought before the church
F.When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
1.National Consensus
2.Popular Mandate
3.National Pacification
4.Pluralism
5.Global Community
6.Economic Justice
7.Economic Democracy
8.Liberation Theology
9.Direct Action
G.Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity
in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
H. Subvert the existing hegemonic culture and replace it with
a "counter-hegemony" that is based on the revolutionary
culture of the oppressed masses
IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.
IV. Herbert Marcuse, 1898-1979
A. Bourgeois Capitalist civilization must be overthrown by
discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with
revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs.
B. Founding Father of Political Correctness
1. "Free Expression" is actually repressive, because it permits
the bourgeois capitalists and other counter-revolutionary
or anti-revolutionary individuals and groups to express their
beliefs and values - values that must be overthrown.
2. Advocates "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly"
for conservative or Christian individuals and groups
a. Denounce them as hate groups, atavistic, fascist,
or intolerant.
b. Denounce conservative or Christian speech as hate speech
d. Do not allow colleges or universities to become "forums"
for politically incorrect speech
3. Advocates "Liberating Tolerance"
a. "intolerance against movements from the Right,
and toleration of movements from the Left."
b. "new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in
the educational institution" to indoctrinate students in
"progressive" values
c. Speech Codes on campuses
d. Reject the values of Western Civilization as "regressive"
e. Reject the "Western Canon" of literature as "regressive"
f. Promote Marxism as "progressive"
g. Denounce and discredit those who resist this "progressive"
agenda as "reactionary" or "fascist" or "racist" or
"the extreme right" etc.
It is a matter of principle. Same sex "marriage" is not about freedom. People can shack up with whomever they want to. What the gay activists and the liberals want more than anything is to have the government affirm and legitimize homosexual activity. That is what is so illegitimate about civil same sex "marriage". People in a free country have the right to have differing views on the morality of homosexual activity. The government should at most remain neutral, not promote homosexual activity and demonize those who believe otherwise.
Third, it paves the way for civil polygamy, polyandry, marrying of beasts and inanimate objects, and otherwise destroys the institution of marriage, which does serve a public purpose since it provides for stable families for children.
The IRS is not run by an army of social militants intent on destroying the fabric of society.
I agree that government intrusion is a serious problem, but most of these intrusions are a direct result of rules legislated by SCOTUS.
Welcome to the Judicial Oligarchy of America!
I have never understood why some people are so passionate about making marriage illegal for homosexuals to the point of passing a constitutional amendment on the matter.
How hard have you tried? Here is a reality for you, society rests on the foundation we call the family. Man, woman and children. Sexually deviant groupings that don't fit that foundational definition harm society, giving them the protection of law is fatal to society. Every time. Study history. Why? Because defying God is fatal. Ask Europe.
The amendment would not make marriage illegal for homosexuals, that's a lie often told.
Under the amendment, homosexuals would be just as free to marry as anyone else...a member of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is.
1. To stop the activist judicial promotion of a deviant, unnatural, sexual practice, that threatens the stability and survival of the human race.
2. To promote and protect the institute which supports the fact that the union of a man and a woman is necessary for the continued survival of all life.
The proof I offer is the fact that you and I exist. If either of our parents had been born true homosexuals and it was the norm then you and I would not exist.
Therefore if you reply to this I will have to assume that you exist and consider your reply as further proof of my statement.
Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.
Using your logic, if everyone pooled their resources and put forth an effort to eliminate the IRS, it would bear fruitage. Well, you are wrong.
Do you know why? Because standing in the way of any populist movement to kill the IRS would be an untold number of activist judges who have spent their entire careers deciding that the will of the people doesn't mean jack if it doesn't pass muster with the black-robed people in the high chairs.
Nobody likes to mess with the Constitution. That's why it's only been amended 27 times in the 228 year history of this republic. But when something as personal to the individuals who make this nation as the legal definition of the family unit is subject to change by judicial fiat, all measures must be considered.
You seem to be of the opinion that the power of the people that would be required to save the nuclear family from activist judges would sap future efforts closer to your heart. I disagree -- I think if marriage is "saved," people will like the way they feel after flexing their muscles, and move on to another target.
Besides, I would venture to guess that most of -- if not all -- of the people pissing and moaning about a proposed marriage definition amendment aren't aware that last Amendment was ratified in 1992 -- during the Clinton Administration! Are we to believe that a Congressional salary Amendment passed in the 18th Century and not enshrined until the end of the 20th was disruptive of the rest of the legislative and judicial processes?
The Federal Marriage Amendment does not relate to homosexuality. By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, the amendment would prevent any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, from marrying another man, regardless of his sexual orientation. It would also prevent any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, from marrying another woman, regardless of her sexual orientation.
It's the money.
Any two people in America are free to form any kind of legal partnership that they want and bestow any amount of worldly goods on the other -- and ,as far as I know, powers of attorney, etc. However, the only way that homosexuals can latch on to retirement benefits and social security benefits and health plan benefits is to get homosexual marriage legalized so that they can make a claim on their partner's employer.
Carry that to the extreme and employers and the government will soon find themselves priced out of their various insurance plans. There will be a seismic shift in the way benefit plans are administered across the nation. Stay at home moms and children will be the losers here.
Welcome to earth Paul... What planet are you from ?.. A prolonged discussion on blue laws and legislating morality awaits you.. By the way; sex is a big issue here, like sex with children, animals, rape, all like that.. Seems that some humans would have sex with a snake if they could figure out which end to violate.. and would probably sue who whoever sold it to them; when it BIT THEM...